Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:04:01PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Basically every construct that we would be tempted to use <> or s1*0 for >> occasionally is one that is not really attached to a note, but rather to >> a moment in time. > > I certainly agree that it would be good to be clear about "stuff" > which is attached to a note vs. "stuff" which is attached to a > moment in time. (either "the moment between notes" or "some > moment within the previous / next note) > >> One argument might be that >> c( c) >> might look ugly, but less ugly than >> (c )c >> looks. Of course, neither is symmetric. > > IIRC, the old style in lilypond was: > (c c)
I don't think that distributing ( and ) between standalone event and post-event respectively is a concept that will carry the day sufficiently to be given a chance at a comeback. It would make (c (d) e) visually confusing. While neither the current c( d)( e) nor the standalone event version (c )(d )e will win a price for prettiness, they both beat (c (d) e) in conveying meaning rather than looking pleasing. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
